“One of the obvious ways to overcome these problems is to make New Zealand a bigger country with bigger companies. We need a national debate on population policy and how big we should be by 2060.

Once grown, the challenge is then keeping these companies in New Zealand so the country benefits from them. The alternative is selling out to other countries and losing talent overseas for better jobs and better pay.”

The NZIER suggested a population of 15 million for New Zealand, by 2060 .

“We need to ensure existing capability-enhancing policies are delivering value for money. Our immigration, tax, welfare and foreign investment policies need to enhance rather than restrict the ability of New Zealand firms to gain scale.

On-going efforts to cut less vital spending like Working for Families and interest-free student loans will ease the pressure on the kiwi dollar. Public spending has acted like a tax on the export sector.”

Leaving aside the issue of migration for a moment, the question that demands an answer is: do these people actually think through issues before making public pronouncements?

Because reading their comments and thinking through the issues to inevitable conclusions leads this blogger to conclude that NZEIR and ExportNZ indulge in superficial thinking and short-term, easy “solutions”.

For starters, what would be the consequences of a population of 15 million people?

This country already suffers from the following;

175,000 unemployed.

How does adding ten and a half million people help address those already jobless?

More pollution.

I think most of us know by now that our “100% Pure” and “Clean and Green” reputation is now mostly a fiction to rival that of elves, goblins, hobbits, pixies, Easter bunny, Little Red Riding Hood, Mickey Mouse, et al.

As our population has increased, so has housing affordability and availability worsened. Housing was more affordable fourty years ago and young New Zealanders are having to migrate to Australia to buy a home of their own.

The damage caused to our expanding tourism industry would most likely outweigh any benefits accrued from an increase in exports.

Third and last contention; trebling our population seems a simplistic and hopelessly lazy “solution” to a problem that appears more rooted in other factors such as National’s blind obedience to neo-liberal policies, and it’s refusal to address the high value of our dollar.

It seems bizarre that ExportNZ has wandered off on some weird tangeant, and ignored the real problems affecting exporters. It’s almost as if Ms Beard; her colleagues; and NZIER, have experienced a collective – dare I say it – brain fade.

If this is the best that our business leaders can come up with, then I despair for our country.

Desperate to seize power from Labour, and faced with strong, experienced leadership in the form of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, National and it’s fresh, new leader – John Key – launched a series of public-relations media/propaganda initiatives. One of those propaganda exercises, a photo-op with a schoolgirl, would come back to haunt Dear Leader and ridicule one of his major pledges…

.

Opening shots…

.

The campaign to mark out National’s “human face of neo-liberalism” was launched on 30 January 2007, when Key made his speech “The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All” at the Burnside Rugby Clubrooms, Christchurch.

It had all the nice, warm, fuzzy sound-bites; “good Kiwi upbringing“; “betterment of all New Zealanders“, “proud of our culture and society“; “opportunity and hope“; “giving people a fair go”; “egalitarian society“; “The Kiwi Way” (mentioned ten times); “born into a struggling household“, etc, etc, etc…

Whoever wrote that speech really mined the handbook of the Kiwi Psyche.

But the real opening shots in the political battle for the hearts and minds of New Zealanders began in the opening months of 2007 – two full years leading up to the November 2008 general elections.

Reading many of Key’s speeches and policy announcements, was almost like tapping into a Scandinavian model of a social democratic society. Michael Joseph Savage would have nodded in approval to many of Key’s utterances.

Especially when, on 3 February 2007, Key announced the launching of National’s “Food in Schools programme“. It was pure 1930s Labour stuff,

.

National Party Leader John Key has announced the first initiative in what will be a National Food in Schools programme.

During his State of the Nation speech on Tuesday, Mr Key indicated National would seek to introduce a food in schools programme at our poorest schools in partnership with the business community.

Mr Key has since received an approach from Auckland-based company Tasti foods.

“I approached Wesley Primary School yesterday, a decile 1 school near McGehan Close, a street that has had more than its fair share of problems in recent times. I am told Wesley Primary, like so many schools in New Zealand, has too many kids turning up hungry.”

Of course once National came to power twentyone months later, on 8 November 2008, Key’s quasi-socialistic policy of ” providing practical solutions to the problems which Helen Clark says don’t exist “, quietly slipped beneath the waves and disappeared from public sight.

It had achieved it’s purpose.

In fact, National’s policy stance on any suggestion of Food in Schools programmes, is now somewhat more hostile,

.

Organisations working with the poor and opposition parties say Prime Minister John Key is in ”la la land” if he thinks fruit is enough to get a hungry child through a school day.

Labour yesterday unveiled a $10 million policy to provide free food to 650 of the country’s lowest decile primary and intermediate schools.

Key immediately rejected the idea, saying free fruit was already provided in the ”vast bulk” of low-decile schools and there was often a breakfast programme.

”Not every school wants every child to be provided a lunch,” he told reporters in Russia before leaving for Japan. ”There are many families that can provide those lunches’.”‘

And in case anyone missed the point that National was not about to follow the Scandinavian model of helping children living in poverty,

Prime Minister John Key says beneficiaries who resort to food banks do so out of their own “poor choices” rather than because they cannot afford food.

Mr Key made the comment when asked in Parliament yesterday about poverty levels.

When Labour’s social development spokeswoman Annette King asked about Salvation Army reports of high demand for food parcels, Mr Key responded by saying it was true that the global recession meant more people were on benefits.

“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills.

“And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”

Not only has National’s “Food in Schools programme” vanished, and subsequently replaced with naked antipathy, but this blogger’s emails to the Prime Minister’s office on the issue have gone unanswered.

However, it can safely be stated that the difference between Kirk and Key was/is monumental. It was a distance between two men that can only be measured in interstellar terms.

Kirk believed deeply in what he was doing.

Key simply exploited a naive young girl and her family for a photo-op – which we all now by now is something he cannot pass by.

In the Herald, on 6 November 2007, Aroha and her family expressed delight at attending Waitangi Day celebrations with the leader of the Opposition (as he was then),

Yesterday morning, Mr Key picked Aroha up in a Crown limousine and took her to Waitangi with him, discussing, among other things, her favourite band, Panic at the Disco.

She described the trip – one of the few she’s made outside Auckland and which included her first stay in a hotel – as “exciting”.

She said her family were also rapt with the visit, and felt much more comfortable when they realised National list MP Jackie Blue, who accompanied Mr Key to McGehan Close, would be with her for the trip.

Dr Blue was Aroha’s grandmother’s doctor and also attended to her mother, Joan Nathan, so “Mum said I’d be in good hands”.

The pair spent part of the day with Mr Key but slipped away for lunch at the Copthorne Hotel, where Aroha described the chips as great but said she didn’t think the fish was fresh.

“Dad always says if it doesn’t fall apart it’s not fresh.”

Aroha said she knew little about events at Waitangi on Waitangi Day, but was looking forward to finding out.

It’s somewhat disturbing to note that National list MP Jackie Blue, who had a close personal relationship with Aroha’s family, played along with the photo-op. That was despite reservations expressed by some,

Labour list MP Dover Samuels was the only one publicly labelling Mr Key’s invitation a stunt yesterday, but others quietly voiced similar concerns.

Three months later, on 27 May 2007, Key referred to Aroha Ireland in a speech strangely entitled, “Tough on Crime”. His reference to Aroha was fleeting (as was his brief intervention in her life), barely rating a mention,

” For the past six months, I’ve had the privilege of travelling New Zealand from city to town talking to the people who make our country tick. I’ve been to places like McGehan Close and met people like Aroha Ireland, a young girl with big dreams for her future. I’ve milked cows in Horowhenua. I’ve visited primary schools in Canterbury. I’ve met with iwi in Ruatoria. “

” The first ‘E’ is the economy. National will emphasise this theme because we are committed to delivering New Zealanders the fruits of a wealthier country. Make no mistake – Labour’s policies are seeing us fall further and further behind the rest of the world. The recent Budget did absolutely nothing to alleviate that slide.

Michael Cullen has given up on growing our economy, instead he’s preparing for retirement: Labour’s retirement.

Well, National is a lot more ambitious than that. We think Kiwis deserve higher wages and lower taxes during their working lives,as well as a good retirement. That’s why we will pursue economic policies and infrastructure development that will keep New Zealand competitive on the world stage. Make no mistake – Bill English’s first Budget will include tax cuts. “

A spokesman for Key said he had visited her home last year to try to help resolve the housing issue, and had spoken to her on the phone several times since the election. Key didn’t wish to make any further comment.

Why should he? Aroha Ireland had served her purpose for the 2008 general election, and like some Bond Villain, Key was now disposing of his ‘puppets’ – they were no longer useful for his grand Master Plan for World New Zealand Domination.

And Key’s crony, National MP Jackie Blue’s, response was even more insightful,

Jackie Blue said Nathan worked 10 hours a week doing administration for Mt Roskill office up until the 2008 election.

She wasn’t re-employed because Blue merged her office with Lotu-Iiga, and didn’t need to rehire staff.

Blue said she had tried to keep in touch, but Nathan’s phone had been disconnected.

Irony heaped upon grim irony… made redundant from a faux-job created specifically by the Nats as an enticing “lolly” for Joan Nathan (Aroha’s mother)… phone disconnected as a sign of lowered income and encroaching poverty… Ms Nathan’s loss of employment symptomatic of National’s do-nothing approach to the country’s growing unemployment crisis…

Little wonder that Aroha Ireland no longer wanted to talk about Key’s visit three years ago. One cannot feel any measure of pride in being used.

John Key’s photo-op had gone full-circle, and was lining up to tear big chunks from Dear Leader’s arse.

If anything, Aroha’s situation was now a prime example of National’s policies (or lack thereof) – but not as the Nat’s politburo had intended.

.

Shot himself in the foot…

.

By November of last year, Key’s photo-op with Aroha Ireland had jumped from expressions of disgust, by her family at being exploited, to one of high farce for the Nats – and a measure of hope for Aroha.

Ms Ireland was joining the flood of New Zealanders escaping over the Berlin Wall Tasman Sea to a Brighter Future – in Australia,

National leader John Key says the teenager he took to Waitangi Day three years ago is not leaving for Australia because life is better there.

Aroha Ireland, 16, became the face of National’s campaign to close the gap with Australia and help struggling families during the last election campaign.

Now it has been reported that Miss Ireland is headed across the Tasman.

Dear Leader sez “the teenager he took to Waitangi Day three years ago is not leaving for Australia because life is better there ” ?!

Oh yeah, spin it, John Boy, spin it!

Key went on to state (with a straight face, I hope) that he did not think she was going because of the yawning wage gap, between our two countries,

“I’m proud of the Government’s record – in difficult times, we’ve closed that wage gap with Australia. We’ve grown after-tax wages by 10 per cent in the last three years, Australia by six.”

Except… well… Yeah, nah. John Key is now piling the BS on top of his previous outrageous spin. The facts speak otherwise – the wage gap is growing, not reducing, despite what Key and his spinmeisters might want us to believe.

In fact, Key should be fully aware that he was being less than truthful by suggesting that the wages gap was closing. As right wing politician, and ex-Reserve bank governor, Don Brash stated only two weeks earlier,

(Unfortunately, Brash’s brief moment of lucidity was short-lived, and he thereafter descended into right wing nuttery to solve the growing wage gap. In essence, more of the same of the last thirty years. What’s that definition of craziness; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome?)

It was little wonder that Key claimed he had “no idea” why Aroha was escaping to Australia,

“Lots of young people decide to go for an OE – I don’t know how long she’ll last. I’m not in a position to go into too much; hope she comes back.

I’m disappointed she’s going for her, because I think New Zealand has got a great future in front of it and I’d like her to be part of it.“

This, I submit to the reader, is a pretty good indication how ridiculous and pathetic the whole issue becomes when Parliament intrudes into the private lives of consenting adults (aided and abetted by some extremist religious groups who feel they have a monopoly of certain institutions).

We now have the bizarre spectacle of a Member of Parliament asking some fairly personal questions that – if I went up to some strangers in a bar – would probably earn me a smack in the head.

But let’s take this situation to it’s natural conclusion. If Mr Singh feels it appropriate to ask personal questions about peoples’ personal lives, my questions to him are;

Does he prefer missionary, doggie, cowgirl, or perhaps something a little more exotic from the Kama Sutra?

Does he and Mrs Singh ever do the Wild Thing somewhere other than the marital bedroom? Kitchen? Attic? Laundry?

Spit or swallow?

As a taxpayer who pays for Mr Singh’s Parliamentary career, and now his opportunity to delve into people’s private lives, I feel I have a new-found right to make these enquiries of Mr Singh.

Actually, I think all Parliamentarians should answer these questions! (Except John Banks. I really don’t want to know. )

This is how utterly stupid the debate on marriage equality can get, when those in “authority” believe they have a moral right to sit in judgement of others, and ask loathsome questions of their private lives.

And if our society applied the same standard of bigotry against Mr Singh that he levelled at the two gay men who appeared at the Select Committee hearing today (22 Nov) – a Whites Only racist society might not have been so welcoming toward him when he applied to immigrate to this country.